FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Roy Wood, Frank J. Keegan and Bristol Press,

 

Complainants,

 

against Docket #FIC 88‑161

 

Office of the Corporation Counsel and Mayor of the City of Bristol,

 

Respondents September 14, 1988

 

The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested case, on June 14, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:

 

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1‑18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter dated April 7, 1988, the complainants requested the respondents provide them with a copy of their response to allegations made by Jerome Davis in his complaint to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in its case number 8830241.

 

3. By letter dated April 14, 1988, the respondents' legal counsel denied the request.

 

4. By letter dated April 20, 1988, and filed with the Commission on April 22, 1988, the complainants appealed to the Commission.

 

5. At the hearing, the parties stipulated to entering all testimony from Docket #FIC 88‑151, Roy Wood, Frank J. Keegan and Bristol Press against West Central District Manager, State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, into the record of this case.

 

6. The respondents claim that the requested record is exempt from disclosure under 1‑19(b)(4), G.S.

 

Docket #88‑161 Page Three

 

7. It is found that the requested record pertains to the respondents' strategy with respect to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities' case number 8830241.

 

8. It is found that case number 8830241 was a claim pending before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities at the time the complainants requested the record.

 

9. It is concluded, therefore, that the requested record is exempt under 1‑19(b)(4), G.S.

 

10. Thus it is concluded that the respondents did not violate 1‑15 or 1‑19(a), G.S., when they withheld the requested record.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned complaint:

 

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of September 14, 1988.

 

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission